Final Report of Cold Fusion 101 Class at MIT: The NANOR Emerges

Many thanks to Barry Simon for submitting the following report about the 2014 Short Course 101 on Cold Fusion at MIT.

In a word, Cold Fusion 101 at MIT was inspiring. The lectures started off with Peter Hagelstein discussing the early days of Pons and Fleischmann and why their first experiments were not successfully replicated. (Conspiracy theorists will be disappointed.) He also covered the most widely accepted CF theories, including his own, and went into a lot of scientific detail.

Unless you have the mathematical language to understand formulas (which I don’t), a lot of Prof. Hagelstein’s info will fly over your head (which it did mine). His lectures are surely for heavyweights. Ruby Carat via Jeremy Rys has already put up some of the lectures on Cold Fusion Now.

He started each lecture with the warning that the field of Cold Fusion can be a career killer. In that statement you can sense his struggle, and how ending up as the lone Cold Fusion wolf at MIT after 25 years has taken a toll on his spirit. He didn’t go into the politics and spoke with respect about his CF adversaries, even calling for a moment of silence for John Huizenga on the last day of class. I would challenge any physicist to explain to him why CF can’t work. By the way, MIT just got $22 million for Hot Fusion research, for Cold Fusion $0.

Peter Hagelstein’s approach was Einsteinian, whereas Mitchell Swartz was more like Edison. PH is trying to figure out how and why CF works, while MS spends much of his time in the workshop, working on improving his CF devices. His lectures were easier on a layman such as myself, and the evolution of the NANOR Cold Fusion device is fascinating.

Highlights for me were:

  • Mitchell Swartz has started a new company called Nanortech where they will be selling or leasing NANORS. If anyone seriously wants one, I recommend you act now before the waiting list grows.
  • He showed an early experiment of a Phusor (name before NANOR) running a Stirling engine (an engine that runs from heat rather than chemical fuel).
  • The latest NANOR series, for there have been many, will efficiently work with 1 watt input. People have criticized the NANORs for being low-milliwatt devices. This is a myth. NANORs can also be chained together.
  • In 2012 the NANOR ran at MIT for 4 months, left MIT and ran for another 8 months of testing (though the actual running time would have been 10% or 1.2 months), reaching a peak of 14 COP (14 times more energy than (electrical) input power).
  • In 2013 a NANOR reached 80 COP for 30 minutes.
  • In 2014 the NANOR Series 8 has reached new efficiencies that are soon to be reported and are now on the market.
  • Dr. Swartz, like Edison, prefers to spend his time in the workshop rather than yakking about his findings on the internet. He is willing to openly share his data and methods to the community at large. He is very thorough in his research, wanting to test and retest x20 to be on the safe side, and his findings almost have to be dragged out of him. Like–who knew a Stirling engine has already been hooked up to a CF device? By the way, he tried to patent it, but the US Patent Office refuses all things “Cold Fusion.” Can’t wait to show it. It looks like something that will someday have a place in the Museum of Science.

NANOR 2014_edited-1
Photo credit: Barry Simon

Just wanted to give a fresh report. As I write if feel the weight of how large these statements and figures are and ask for a chance to triple check them. Then I’ll be making a new video.

Peace, Barry Simon

52 Replies to “Final Report of Cold Fusion 101 Class at MIT: The NANOR Emerges”

  1. Scalable heating. It seems the knowledge of Peter Hagelstein is openly shared for now but I am unsure if it could be said to be open source. It is a potential avenue to proliferate this technology rapidly.

  2. Thanks Barry for your time, efforts and reporting back here to us. I am curious as to what the relationship is with the University and the good professor? How is he funded and or supported in his experiments there? Is he relegated to a back closet somewhere on campus? I know that last year he was denied a significant donation for his research efforts by the PTB in that place? Just curious as to what keeps him going there (funded)? MIT was thee major university that first killed the P & F experiments, falsely reporting no over-unity in what were truthfully successful replications of that early experiment, so how can they be trusted?

  3. Dr. Swartz, like Edison, prefers to spend his time in the workshop rather than yakking about his findings on the internet. He is willing to openly share his data and methods to the community at large. He is very thorough in his research, wanting to test and retest x20 to be on the safe side, and his findings almost have to be dragged out of him. Like–who knew a Stirling engine has already been hooked up to a CF device? By the way, he tried to patent it, but the US Patent Office refuses all things “Cold Fusion.” Can’t wait to show it.

    I’m sorry, but but I find this excerpt contradicting and just plain odd; it’s like cold water to the partial excitement I had toward this NANOR.

    Swartz is open to share data and methods … but he won’t talk about his findings on the internet … and his findings almost have to be dragged out of him …??

    If he had an online, regularly updated journal, even closed to public comments, or website where he could post data and information about his experiments as they came in, he wouldn’t have to waste (?) his precious time responding to every sharing request and debating about small details. The entire research community would immediately benefit from that.

    In 2014 the NANOR Series 8 has reached new efficiencies that are soon to be reported and are now on the market.

    Mitchell Swartz has started a new company called Nanortech where they will be selling or leasing NANORS. If anyone seriously wants one, I recommend you act now before the waiting list grows.

    So, we can get one because they’re already on the market, but their performance hasn’t been reported yet, same for their price… but potentially interested people have to act “now” because the waiting list is growing? Is this what Swartz actually said? Don’t you agree that the way this is worded doesn’t inspire much confidence, to say the least? Other LENR players have been accused of sc***ing for much less.

      1. I checked them out when they got uploaded. Still not much information yet about Swartz’s latest NANOR devices, that must be in upcoming videos.

        Anyway, to clarify I wasn’t criticizing whether he has working devices or not (I hope he does though). I simply felt that the way the latest information was presented was painting him as an eccentric person and could easily be misused by pseudoskeptics.

    1. The foundation’s invitation to Monday’s announcement says “Calling all doers, dreamers and never disbelievers.” The vague announcement the event says Geolas will be on hand to describe the forthcoming project and its place in the history and future of RTP and the state.

      The words ‘disbelievers’ and ‘history’ are ringing major alarm bells for me!

      Could this be the big moment?!

      1. Exciting – Also, as I remember President Obama, during his state of the union address this past week mentioned his recent visit to this research park and something about upcoming technological breakthroughs…

          1. “Unleash the next great American discovery” from Obama’s state of the union speech,at the 14:38 mark – I like it and believe he knows what we know…

          2. I also think he is aware . . . I think from a risk averse perspective, he will say nothing until something like a strong public demonstration of an industrial scale device occurs. IMO, CF brings inordinate political risk, a point Barry focused upon and cited by Hagelstein in his CF 101 class. As an example, just look at how the participants on this website responded to the drama started by Mill’s PR and finished by his highly controlled ‘demonstration’ . . . and we are the supporters of LENR.

            Given all this, I still think 2014 will continue with some very significant news and demonstrations . . . . I just think they will come as a surprise rather than as an easily predicted event.

    2. Likely not related to Industrial Heat.


      Been in the works for quite a while. Will likely include some big iconic thing like St.Louis’ arch (dare I say, something triangle-ish), and a campus to showcase the accomplishments/activities of the research triangle companies and universities…plus some working facilities to facilitate collaboration.

      Pretty smart actually to make “Research Triangle” into a destination worthy of tourist visits.

      It’s possible they are leveraging Industrial Heat in some way, but it would have had to come together quickly. This RTP enhancement and event has been long-planned.

      Hope it’s cool whatever it is.

        1. Maybe but I’d prefer it didn’t. LENR’s significance is huge and deserves a big rollout.

          Perhaps though TPTB have opted to prepare the battlefield first by just putting it out there like it’s normal in a bunch of understated ways.

          Press release here. Research park mention there.

  4. So what do they claim the Nanor can do continuously? What average COP; during what time; how is it controlled, what does it cost, can it be regenerated. If they want to put something on the market, they need to provide specs and commercial data, even for universities.

      1. Certain to be an interesting year. If LENR acceptance goes mainstream we will literal see triillions of dollars pointed at it.

    1. The Nanor originated from the High School Open Source LENR project in Italy.

      I do not think it is meant to be sold as a viable energy device, but is being supplied as proof of CF/LENR to places like MIT, etc.

      Bringing LENR acceptance mainstream (accepted by “Nature Magazine”) is extremely important, and this device might make that happen sooner. They are not sitting on patent applications.

      1. The Nanor is from JET Energy, Inc, Wellesley Hills, MA..It is not from the High School Open Source LENR project in Italy who had projects named Athanor and Hydrobetatron.

  5. Closest thing I can find right now is

    So there’s Jet Energy, apparently newly formed Nanortechnology with no proper web site yet and something called Cherry Technology.

    I also found that “Nanor” is trademarked by Orfit for an immobilization mesh (unrelated to LENR) and they call it “Nanor technology.”

    So while these guys may have the technology goods they are beyond awful web-wise and business-wise so far. Let’s hope they get their act together.

    1. Do we really want them to be good at business? Don’t we want them to be maverick geniuses who end up putting the technology out there in a demonstrable form, even if in a haphazard and unbusinesslike manner?

      1. Sure, that works for me. But even maverick geniuses can put together a decent web site.

        And they’d be leaving billions on the table, but that’s their business.

  6. That PDF is based on the 2012 demo/short course. According to Barry they are now operating at the Watt range (input) with a COP significantly north of 15.

    Which is commericalizable.

  7. Obama is now in his second term and doesn’t have to worry about Reelection. He’s free to do all sorts of stuff that would have sunk him first term. It looks like that’s exactly what he’s going to do

  8. Respectfully, I can build a very impressive website. I don’t know squat about physics. The two have exactly zero to do with each other.

  9. As they require palladium and deuterium for the manufacture of the ZrO2-PdD material, this is likely to keep the price fairly high regardless of manufacturing costs (palladium is currently around $130 per gram, deuterium about $600 per 10 litre cylinder). I think these devices will probably be purchased for experimental purposes rather than as ‘batteries’ unless a way can be found to substitute nickel hydride.

    1. As far as I understand they can already make nickel-based NANOR devices, but they would have a lower energy gain.
      As soon as LENR are conclusively proven to the mainstream scientific community however, improving them should only be a matter of applied engineering.

    2. Yes, but the Nanors contain only on the order of 50 mg of palladium, dispersed in a zirconium oxide carrier matrix. And the amount of adsorbed/absorbed deuterium cannot be other than equally tiny.

    1. I have been surprised about the passage in the original paper where Sargoytchev states that there was no shielding in the Hot-Cats which were tested by Levi et al. Now it seems to look somewhat clearer. However, it’s also possible that Rossi has reduced the gammas successfully. As far as I remember, he said some time ago that the transmutations in the E-Cat were the result of a side effect, not of the main reaction.

  10. Thanks barry, it was a very informative report, i was surprised it was so small , but if they can be incorporated to build a stronger output, that is great, i hope they have much success.

    1. From my point of view the MIT Seminar on LENR was well worth attending. It provided an excellent overview of LENR as well as progress that has been made by researchers at MIT and elsewhere since the original Pons and Fleischmann experiments were announced in 1989 .

      The attendees came from the US, Europe and even one from Japan. Folks I spoke with were all very pleased having taken the time to be a part of it. The backgrounds of the attendees ranged from engineers, scientists, and investment types.

      Although my academic and working background is in Electrical Engineering I did take several courses in nuclear and condensed matter physics while in graduate school. This allowed me to follow to some extent Peter Hagelstein’s and Mitchel Swartz’s technical presentations. As you probably know Peter Hagelstein and Mitchel Swartz are theoretical and experimental physicists, respectively. Both are extremely competent in their fields. They were very forthcoming by answering all questions put to them by the audience and were also very open about their work.

      The first four days were dedicated to a discussion of the anomalous heat effect observed in the Pons and Fleischmann electrolysis cell. The morning sessions covered the description of a physics model underlying excess heat. Prof. Hagelstein has been developing his model for the last 12 years. He is able to account many of the observations reported by experimentalists over the years.

      The bottom line is no new physics is required nor does quantum theory need to be ditched to explain the experimentalists’ observations. Hagelstein’s model posits deuteron – deuteron fusion reactions based on the detection of He4 when excess heat is produced. This is a highly exothermic nuclear reaction which should also generate ~ 24 Mev gamma radiation. In the Pons Fleischmann experiments no such radiation nor neutrons were detected. The question naturally arose where is the missing gamma. Based on condensed matter physics Hagelstein is able to show that the radiation shows up as coherent phonon coupling of the palladium lattice. This is no small feat due to the high (24 Mev) quantum energy. His model also explains how the Coulomb force is overcome thus making deuteron fusion possible.

      The afternoon sessions were given by Prof. Swartz. They dealt primarily with experimental work he has done over the years. He has been able to work out the experimental conditions required for successful heat generation such as the degree of deuteron cathode loading, as well as, the optimum operating point (sweet spot) in terms of cathode current for maximum power output. The data presented for the experimental runs were carefully done with controls so that there can be little doubt about the validity of the measurements. The maximum COP shown in the presentation overheads reached 80.

      His measurements demonstrated that excess heat was generated when the deuterium loading exceeded a well defined threshold. Typically it needed to be up around 90%. Mike McKubre at SRI had also shown this to be the case. One reason why many early experiments resulted in false negatives is due to this threshold behavior which was unknown to early experimenters. Prof. Swartz pointed out that loading to such high levels causes the palladium crystal lattice to expand which could result in surface damage if not carried out carefully. Therefore the loading has to be done at low cathode current density over a fairly long period of time measured in weeks. Again not taking this into account would necessarily lead to false negatives.

      Prof. Swartz also demonstrated on video a small sterling engine powered by an LENR device. Again made use of a control. This video was quite impressive in my opinion. It’s a first for converting excess heat into mechanical energy.

      On the final day, Friday, the topic changed to the nickel hydrogen system and nano powders. It was pointed out that the amount of hydrogen loading of nickel is much more difficult than is the case for palladium. In the case of nickel the hydrogen forms tight clusters. It does not occupy voids in the lattice as in palledium. This may explain the higher temperatures which are observed with the Hot Cat. (my conjecture)

      1. Thanks a lot for sharing, very interesting. Did they say why they are not concentrating more on the nickle/hydrogen reaction?

  11. All lectures from the Cold Fusion 101 Class at MIT have been posted on the Youtube channel.
    I would suggest everybody to watch at least the video segments featuring Mitchell Swartz as they are easy to follow and focus on the experimental side (NANOR) which most people here might be probably interested in.

    January 27: (MS at 2:01:29)
    January 28: (MS at 2:06:10)
    January 29: (MS at 2:02:40)
    January 30: (MS at 2:03:30)
    January 31: (MS at 2:14:50)

    I learned that the latest NANOR devices are nickel-based and use no expensive palladium. However they are preloaded with deuterium, not hydrogen (heavy water, which contains deuterium, is worth several thousands dollar per liter). At low input (a few dozen milliwatts) these NANORs show an energy gain of about 27x, but they can be driven at a higher input power (1 watt) at which the gain drops to about 3x. They have a bell-shaped gain curve, of which he calls the peak “optimal operating point” (OOP). My observation is that since the gain is higher at low input, if we wanted the same gain with a higher output power there would have to be more active material / bigger NANOR devices. The ones shown only weight about 50 milligrams.

    Swartz is currently working on the version “8” of these devices, focusing on scaling them up using different materials. Apparently he is having very good results and very high gain, which he won’t disclose yet. Regarding how they’re made, there’s much information he can’t talk about yet due to the patent status (rejected because “cold fusion”). He hopes to be able to during the next Cold Fusion 101 class next year (so, 2015).

    I must be honest here: after watching these videos my confidence in these NANOR devices increased ten-fold. If he’s going to give them to other researchers/labs for testing (his IP is in the active material preparation – apparently a very lengthy process – not the actual materials used), there’s no way that LENR will not soon become mainstream.

    This is possibly bigger than Rossi and the others working on kilowatt-scale excess power.

  12. With a COP of 14 (or greater) it should be able to heat to power a thermoelectric device (overcoming its losses) to make enough electric power to run itself with enough left over to power a smart phone (or other small device) for months. It is not necessary to make megawatts to be a super successful product. The time to market and ability to mass produce small devices is the best it has ever been right now. I hope that it can get to market ASAP.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *